Preventive detention safeguards require translated grounds and a real Advisory Board hearing; failure to comply vitiates detention.

Preventive detention requires strict compliance with Article 22(5): the detention order, grounds and relied-upon material must be supplied in the language understood by the detenu, and English or Hindi copies do not suffice where that language is not understood. The High Court held that this defect vitiated the detention. The detention was also invalid because the detenu was not given an effective hearing before the Advisory Board; he was removed due to illness and was not recalled despite time remaining. On the record, the material, centred on a retracted customs statement and a co-accused's statement, was insufficient to justify continued detention, so the order was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether failure to supply the detention order, grounds, and relied-upon documents in the language understood by the detenu vitiated the detention under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India; (ii) Whether denial of a proper hearing before the Advisory Board before confirmation of detention invalidated the detention order; (iii) Whether the material on record was sufficient to sustain the detention on merits.

Issue (i): Whether failure to supply the detention order, grounds, and relied-upon documents in the language understood by the detenu vitiated the detention under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The governing requirement in preventive detention is strict compliance with the constitutional mandate that the detenu must be informed of the grounds in a language he understands so as to enable an effective representation. Mere supply of documents in English and Hindi did not meet that standard where the detenu consistently asserted that he understood only Lunda and broken Urdu. The existence of legal assistance or the fact that the representation was drafted through counsel did not cure the defect.

Conclusion: The detention was vitiated on this ground and the finding is in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether denial of a proper hearing before the Advisory Board before confirmation of detention invalidated the detention order.

Analysis: The material showed that the detenu suffered a serious heart condition during the Advisory Board proceedings and was taken away before his examination could commence. The Board did not thereafter recall him, though time remained within the statutory period for doing so. In these circumstances, the constitutional and statutory right to be heard before confirmation was not effectively afforded.

Conclusion: The detention was also vitiated for breach of the right to be heard before the Advisory Board, in favour of the petitioner.

Issue (iii): Whether the material on record was sufficient to sustain the detention on merits.

Analysis: The principal material against the detenu consisted of a retracted statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the statement of a co-accused. There was no substantial independent material showing large-scale involvement, and the case appeared to be of limited role and first involvement. While subjective satisfaction is not to be reappraised as an appeal on facts, the record did not strongly support continued detention.

Conclusion: The merits did not supply any basis to sustain the detention against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The detention order could not be sustained because the constitutional safeguards governing preventive detention were not complied with, and the impugned detention was therefore set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: In preventive detention matters, the detaining authority must strictly comply with the constitutional requirement of supplying the grounds and supporting material in the language understood by the detenu and must afford a real opportunity of hearing before the Advisory Board; failure of either safeguard vitiates the detention.

---